Guest Opinion: Chartering success on Capitol Hill

Monday

Jun 9, 2014 at 4:34 PM

In a year when substantive domestic legislation remains elusive — comprehensive reforms on immigration and taxes have dimmed once again — perhaps the most meaningful bill yet was delivered by the U.S. House last month.

James A. Maloney

In a year when substantive domestic legislation remains elusive — comprehensive reforms on immigration and taxes have dimmed once again — perhaps the most meaningful bill yet was delivered by the U.S. House last month.

With little fanfare but overwhelming decisiveness, the House passed the Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act — a bill introduced by U.S. Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., and U.S. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman and ranking member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee. This legislation does the things that good education legislation should do. It reforms the rougher edges of the charter school movement, while providing the requisite funding to keep alive charters’ record of successes. Moreover, it shows a commitment to our nation’s children.

For many parents, especially those in underprivileged communities, charters are a life-changer. These institutions are part of the public school option, but create a bridge for new opportunity through the mechanism of choice. Dr. Margaret Raymond, director of the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University, explains in the CREDO report The National Charter School Study 2013, “The charter school sector is getting better on average and charter schools are benefiting low-income, disadvantaged, and special education students.” Charters promote achievements that, for many families, go beyond report cards or test scores. There is a sense of optimism within their walls, and this provides the sense of meaning captured in the House bill.

Assessing the success of charter schools through traditional public school standards can be tricky. Charters are not always beholden to the same measures of their traditional school counterparts. In many instances, the charters’ measures are actually more stringent. The missions, teaching practices, budgets, and a variety of internal success standards are often driven by a holistic best practices methodology. Since the first charter law was passed in Minnesota in 1991, however, the academic results and community demand for these institutions have redefined educational success.

The House bill — a $1.5 billion package in total — would reform two large charter school programs, combine grants to open new schools and renovate facilities, and ask for an increase in charter funding by $50 million to $300 million.

As with all legislation, the bill faces opposition. The American Association of School Administrators, in a letter to the House, claimed that the bill should be opposed, in part because “to the extent that there are flexibilities and autonomies afforded to charter schools, so, too, should they be available to traditional schools.”

That is, charters may receive a resource allocation advantage over traditional public schools. Given the mix of public and private funding to charters, though, along with charters’ need to self-prioritize assets, isn’t this necessary? Also, this bill provides that the Secretary of Education will disseminate best practices to ensure all public schools may gain from charter schools’ success. So why withhold legislation in which all school systems benefit? Why stifle the chances of success for our nation’s children? Where, or what, is the meaning in that?

Fortunately, the pro-charter movement has powerful allies. The Obama administration has supported charters and encourages cooperation with traditional public schools. On May 12, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor visited the Bronx Charter School for Excellence in New York City as part of his national education policy tour. Expansion of school choices is one of Cantor’s legislative priorities. This is a rare bipartisan issue.

Even so, public funding for charter schools is a difficult sell. But the success of charter school systems has developed, in many ways, through a stubborn resiliency; a capacity to withstand hardships and do more with less. Charters find their own buildings. They renovate on their own. They often operate independent of unions. They take who comes through their doors.

Then they make it work.

Now, can the Senate do the same? A similar pro-charter bill, introduced by a bipartisan group of Senators, awaits consideration in the higher chamber. This bill’s future, much like the future of thousands of children whose names are cast in charter lotteries each year, is far from certain. But it is the Senate’s moment.

It is their turn to make this legislative session one of meaning — lifelong meaning — for children across the country.

James A. Maloney is a senior director at SevenTwenty Strategies, a Washington-based public affairs firm. The views expressed here are the author’s alone and do not represent the views of his firm. Follow him on Twitter @JamesAMaloney.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.